Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • Thanks for these explanations (and for the resources)! I've just run the command and indeed, my umask value is 002. I'm guessing then that at work it's not the same. I'll run umask there to confirm that. Commented Dec 20, 2019 at 17:39
  • 3
    Not quite right. The umask masks whatever permissions the process supplies when creating the file. It is not required that applications use 0666 or 0777. That is merely common. Commented Dec 20, 2019 at 17:50
  • Typically, the project (editable) version of the script would have an extension like .bash or .sh. Your make install for echo-title would copy it into some bin directory, rename it without the extension, and chmod +x it. You can create a make rule to do those things for all your scripts, as part of an install or release target.. Commented Nov 25, 2020 at 12:42